Developing and validating a simple urethra surrogate model to facilitate dosimetric analysis to predict genitourinary toxicity.

Purpose: The urethra is a critical structure in prostate radiotherapy planning; however, it is impossible to visualise on CT. We developed a surrogate urethra model (SUM) for CT-only planning workflow and tested its geometric and dosimetric performance against the MRI-delineated urethra (MDU). Methods: The SUM was compared against 34 different MDUs (within the treatment PTV) in patients treated with 36.25Gy (PTV)/40Gy (CTV) in 5 fractions as part of the PACE-B trial. To assess the surrogate's geometric performance, the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD), mean distance to agreement (MDTA) and the percentage of MDU outside the surrogate (UOS) were calculated. To evaluate the dosimetric performance, a paired t-test was used to calculate the mean of differences between the MDU and SUM for the D99, D98, D50, D2 and D1. The D(n) is the dose (Gy) to n% of the urethra. Results: The median results showed low agreement on DSC (0.32; IQR 0.21-0.41), but low distance to agreement, as would be expected for a small structure (HD 8.4mm (IQR 7.1-10.1mm), MDTA 2.4mm (IQR, 2.2mm-3.2mm)). The UOS was 30% (IQR, 18-54%), indicating nearly a third of the urethra lay outside of the surrogate. However, when comparing urethral dose between the MDU and SUM, the mean of differences for D99, D98 and D95 were 0.12Gy (p=0.57), 0.09Gy (p=0.61), and 0.11Gy (p=0.46) respectively. The mean of differences between the D50, D2 and D1 were 0.08Gy (p=0.04), 0.09Gy (p=0.02) and 0.1Gy (p=0.01) respectively, indicating good dosimetric agreement between MDU and SUM. Conclusion: While there were geometric differences between the MDU and SUM, there was no clinically significant difference between urethral dose-volume parameters. This surrogate model could be validated in a larger cohort and then used to estimate the urethral dose on CT planning scans in those without an MRI planning scan or urinary catheter.

Prostate Radiotherapy in Low-volume Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The utility of prostate radiotherapy (RT) is unclear in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) receiving intensified systemic therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs). We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the role of prostate RT in low-volume mHSPC. METHODS: Bibliographic databases and conference proceedings were searched through July 2023 for RCTs evaluating the addition of ARPIs or prostate RT to standard of care (SOC) systemic therapy, defined as ADT or ADT plus docetaxel, for the initial treatment of mHSPC. We focused exclusively on aggregate data from the low-volume mHSPC subpopulation in these trials. We pooled the treatment arms into four groups: SOC, SOC plus ARPI, SOC plus RT, and SOC plus ARPI plus RT. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). To compare treatment strategies, a fixed-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis was undertaken, while a Bayesian network meta-regression was performed to account for across-trial differences in docetaxel use as part of SOC and in proportions of patients with de novo presentation. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Ten RCTs comprising 4423 patients were eligible. The Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve scores were 0.0006, 0.45, 0.62, and 0.94 for SOC, SOC plus RT, SOC plus ARPI, and SOC plus ARPI plus RT, respectively. On a meta-regression, in a population with de novo mHSPC and no docetaxel use, we did not find sufficient evidence of a difference in OS between SOC plus ARPI plus RT versus SOC plus ARPI (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76; 95% credible interval: 0.51-1.16) and SOC plus RT versus SOC plus ARPI (HR: 1.10; 95% credible interval: 0.92-1.42). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: There was some evidence that SOC plus ARPI plus RT reduced mortality compared with the next best strategy of SOC plus ARPI in patients with low-volume de novo mHSPC. A meta-analysis with individual patient data or an RCT is needed to confirm these findings.

Urethra contouring on computed tomography urethrogram versus magnetic resonance imaging for stereotactic body radiotherapy in prostate cancer.

Accurate urethra contouring is critical in prostate SBRT. We compared urethra contouring on CT-urethrogram and T2-weighted MRI. The dice similarity coefficient, Jaccard index, Hausdorff distance and mean distance to agreement were evaluated. All four metrics indicate better agreement and less variability in urethra contouring on CT-urethrogram, compared to T2-weighted MRI.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: A Radiosurgery Society Guide to the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer Illustrated by Challenging Cases.

Traditionally, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) involved lengthy courses with low daily doses. However, advancements in radiation delivery and a better understanding of prostate radiobiology have enabled the development of shorter courses of EBRT. Ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy, administering doses greater than 5 Gy per fraction, is now considered a standard of care regimen for localized PCa, particularly for intermediate-risk disease. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), a specific type of ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy employing advanced planning, imaging, and treatment technology to deliver in five or fewer fractions, is gaining prominence as a cost-effective, convenient, and safe alternative to longer radiotherapy courses. It is crucial to address practical considerations related to patient selection, fractionation scheme, target delineation, and planning objectives. This is especially important in challenging clinical situations where clear evidence for guidance may be lacking. The Radiosurgery Society endorses this case-based guide with the aim of providing a practical framework for delivering SBRT to the intact prostate, exemplified by two case studies. The article will explore common SBRT dose/fractionation schemes and dose constraints for organs-at-risk. Additionally, it will review existing evidence and expert opinions on topics such as SBRT dose escalation, the use of rectal spacers, the role of androgen deprivation therapy in the context of SBRT, SBRT in special patient populations (e.g., high-risk disease, large prostate, high baseline urinary symptom burdens, and inflammatory bowel disease), as well as new imaging-guidance techniques like Magnetic Resonance Imaging for SBRT delivery.

Safety of Ultrahypofractionated Pelvic Nodal Irradiation in the Definitive Management of Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the evidence for ultrahypofractionated pelvic nodal irradiation in patients with prostate cancer, with a focus on reported acute and late toxicities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A comprehensive search was conducted in 5 electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov) from inception until March 23, 2023. Eligible publications included patients with intermediate- and high-risk and node-positive prostate cancer who underwent elective or therapeutic ultrahypofractionated pelvic nodal irradiation. Primary outcomes included the presence of grade ≥2 rates of acute and late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events or Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scales. Quality assessment was performed using National Institutes of Health tools for noncontrolled beforeand after (single arm) clinical trials, as well as single-arm observational studies. Because all outcomes were categorical variables, proportion was calculated to estimate the effect size and compare the outcomes after the intervention. RESULTS: We identified 16 publications that reported the use of ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy to treat the pelvis in prostate cancer. Seven publications met our criteria and were included in the meta-analysis, including 417 patients. The median total dose to the pelvic lymph nodes was 25 Gy (range, 25-28.5 Gy), with a median of 5 fractions. The prostate received a median dose of 40 Gy (range, 35-47.5 Gy). All studies used androgen deprivation therapy for a median duration of 18 months. The median follow-up period was 3 years (range, 0.5-5.6 years). The rates of acute grade ≥2 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity were 8% (95% CI, 1%-15%) and 29% (95% CI, 18%-41%), respectively. For late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity, the rates were 13% (95% CI, 5%-21%) and 29% (95% CI, 17%-42%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrahypofractionated pelvic nodal irradiation appears to be a safe approach in terms of acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity.

Randomized Trial of Concomitant Hypofractionated Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Boost Versus Conventionally Fractionated Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Boost for Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer (pHART2-RCT).

PURPOSE: The aim of this work is to report on the results of a phase 2 randomized trial of moderately hypofractionated (MH) versus conventionally fractionated (CF) radiation therapy to the prostate with elective nodal irradiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was a single-center, prospective, phase 2 randomized study. Patients with high-risk disease (cT3, prostate-specific antigen level >20 ng/mL, or Gleason score 8-10) were eligible. Patients were randomized to either MH using a simultaneous integrated boost (68 Gy in 25 fractions to prostate; 48 Gy to pelvis) or CF (46 Gy in 23 fractions with a sequential boost to the prostate of 32 Gy in 16 fractions), with long-term androgen deprivation therapy. The primary endpoint was grade ≥2 acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0). Secondary endpoints included late GI and GU toxicity, quality of life, and oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: One-hundred eighty patients were enrolled; 90 were randomized to and received MH and 90 to CF. The median follow-up was 67.4 months. Seventy-five patients (41.7%) experienced a grade ≥2 acute GI and/or GU toxicity, including 34 (37.8%) in the MH and 41 (45.6%) in the CF arms, respectively (P = .29). Late grade ≥2 GI (P = .07) and GU (P = .25) toxicity was not significantly different between arms; however, late grade ≥3 GI toxicity was worse in the MH group (P = .01). There were no statistically significant quality-of-life differences between the 2 treatments. There were no statistically significant differences observed in cumulative incidence of biochemical failure (P = .71) or distant metastasis (P = .31) and overall survival (P = .46). CONCLUSIONS: MH to the prostate and pelvis with androgen deprivation therapy for men with high-risk localized prostate cancer was not significantly different than CF with regard to acute toxicity, quality of life, and oncologic efficacy. However, late grade ≥3 GI toxicity was more common in the MH arm.

The march toward single-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer-Quo Vadimus?

PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging treatment option for localized prostate cancer. There is increasing interest to reduce the number of fractions for prostate SBRT. METHODS: We provide a narrative review and summary of prospective trials of different fractionation schedules for prostate SBRT, focusing on efficacy, toxicities, and quality of life outcomes. RESULTS: There are two randomized phase 3 trials comparing standard external beam radiotherapy with ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy. HYPO-RT-PC compared 78 Gy in 39 fractions vs 42.7 Gy in 7 fractions (3D-CRT or IMRT) showing non-inferiority in 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival and equivalent tolerability. PACE-B trial compared 78 Gy in 39-fraction or 62 Gy in 20-fraction vs 36.25 Gy in 5-fraction prostate SBRT, with no significant differences in toxicity outcomes at 2 years. Five-year efficacy data for PACE-B are expected in 2024. Five-fraction prostate SBRT is currently the most common and well-established fractionation schedule with multiple prospective phase 2 trials published to date. There is more limited data on 1-4 fraction prostate SBRT. All fractionation schedules had acceptable toxicity outcomes. Experience from a high-dose-rate brachytherapy randomized trial showed inferior efficacy with single-fraction compared to two-fraction brachytherapy. Hence, caution should be applied in adopting single-fraction prostate SBRT. CONCLUSION: Two-fraction SBRT is likely the shortest fractionation schedule that maintains the therapeutic ratio. Several randomized trials currently recruiting will likely provide us with more definite answers about whether two-fraction prostate SBRT should become a standard-of-care option. Enrollment of eligible patients into these trials should be encouraged.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Versus Systematic Prostate Biopsies: 2-year Follow-up of a Prospective Randomized Trial (PRECISE).

BACKGROUND: The prospective randomized PRECISE trial demonstrated that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with only targeted biopsy (TBx) was noninferior to systematic transrectal ultrasound biopsy (SBx) in the detection of International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) ≥2 prostate cancer (PC). An unanswered question is the outcome for patients who avoided a biopsy because of negative MRI findings. OBJECTIVE: To explore the rate of PC diagnosis based on 2-yr MRI for PRECISE participants who had no biopsy and for patients who had a negative result or GG 1 on TBx in comparison to those with a negative result or GG 1 on SBx. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The PRECISE prospective trial was conducted at five Canadian academic centers. The present analysis was for trial participants who were not diagnosed with clinically significant PC (csPC) at baseline. Of 453 randomized patients, 146 were diagnosed with GG ≥2 at baseline and were excluded. Eligible patients for this study included 83 men from the MRI arm who had negative MRI findings and no biopsy, 120 from the overall cohort who had a negative SBx or TBx, and 72 from the overall cohort who were diagnosed with GG 1 disease. INTERVENTION: MRI at 2 yr in all men in the MRI and SBx arms and TBx for lesions with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of ≥3 or on the basis of clinical suspicion. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the proportion of men diagnosed with GG ≥2 cancer. Secondary outcomes included the MRI outcome and the proportion of men diagnosed with GG 1 PC. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Evaluable 2-yr MRI scans were available for 75 (56%) eligible patients in the MRI arm and 69 (49%) in the SBx arm. Of these patients, 55 (73%) in the MRI arm and 51 (67%) SBx arm had negative 2-yr MRI. Of the 76 patients in the SBx arm with 2-yr MRI, 16 (21%) had a biopsy, for which the result was negative in eight (10%), GG1 in two (2.6%), and GG ≥2 in six (7.9%) cases. Of the 75 men in the MRI arm with 2-yr MRI, eight (11%) were biopsied, for which the result was negative in four cases (5%) and GG ≥2 in the other four (5%). At 2 yr, including baseline biopsy results, 116/221 (52.5%) in the MRI arm and 113/204 (55%) in the SBx arm were free of GG ≥2 disease, treatment, death from any cause, or progression (OR 1.08; p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: After 2-yr follow-up including MRI for patients in both arms of PRECISE, there was no difference in the rate of csPC diagnosis between the MRI and SBx groups, even though 38% of men in the MRI group avoided an initial biopsy. PATIENT SUMMARY: The PRECISE trial compared systematic biopsy of the prostate to a strategy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with targeted biopsy of any lesions suspicious for cancer on the scan. After 2 years of follow-up that included 2-year MRI with or without biopsy in both groups, there was no difference in the rate of diagnosis of significant cancer, even though 38% of men in the initial MRI arm avoided an initial biopsy, and 30% avoided biopsy altogether. The PRECISE trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02936258.

Dosimetric correlates of toxicities and quality of life following two-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: There is no evidence-based data to guide dose constraints in two-fraction prostate stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). Using individual patient-data from two prospective trials, we aimed to correlate dosimetric parameters with toxicities and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 60 patients who had two-fraction prostate SABR in the 2STAR (NCT02031328) and 2SMART (NCT03588819) trials. The prescribed dose was 26 Gy to the prostate+/-32 Gy boost to the dominant intraprostatic lesions. Toxicities and QoL data were prospectively collected using CTCAEv4 and EPIC-26 questionnaire. The outcomes evaluated were acute and late grade ≥ 2 toxicities, and late minimal clinical important changes (MCIC) in QoL domains. Dosimetric parameters for bladder, urethra, rectum, and penile bulb were evaluated. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 56 months (range: 39-78 months). The cumulative incidence of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary (GU), gastrointestinal (GI), and sexual toxicities were 62%, 3%, and 17% respectively in the acute setting (<3 months), and 57%, 15%, and 52% respectively in late setting (>6 months). There were 36%, 28%, and 29% patients who had late MCIC in urinary, bowel and sexual QoL outcomes respectively. Bladder 0.5 cc was significant predictor for late grade ≥ 2 GU toxicities, with optimal cut-off of 25.5 Gy. Penile bulb D5cc was associated of late grade ≥ 2 sexual toxicities (no optimal cut-off was identified). No dosimetric parameters were identified to be associated with other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Using real-life patient data from prospective trials with medium-term follow-up, we identified additional dose constraints that may mitigate the risk of late treatment-related toxicities for two-fraction prostate SABR.

To Boost or Not to Boost: Pooled Analyses From 2-Fraction SABR Trials for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Focal boost to dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) is an approach for dose escalation in prostate radiation therapy. In this study, we aimed to report the outcomes of 2-fraction SABR ± DIL boost. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We included 60 patients with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer enrolled in 2 phase 2 trials (30 patients in each trial). In the 2STAR trial (NCT02031328), 26 Gy (equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions = 105.4 Gy) was delivered to the prostate. In the 2SMART trial (NCT03588819), 26 Gy was delivered to the prostate, with up to 32 Gy boost to magnetic resonance imaging-defined DIL (equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions = 156.4 Gy). The reported outcomes included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (ie, <0.4 ng/mL) at 4 years (4yrPSARR), biochemical failure (BF), acute and late toxicities, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: In 2SMART, median DIL D99% of 32.3 Gy was delivered. Median follow-up was 72.7 months (range, 69.1-75.) in 2STAR and 43.6 months (range, 38.7-49.5) in 2SMART. The 4yrPSARR was 57% (17/30) in 2STAR and 63% (15/24) in 2SMART (P = 0.7). The 4-year cumulative BF was 0% in 2STAR and 8.3% in 2SMART (P = 0.1). The 6-year BF in 2STAR was 3.5%. For genitourinary toxicities, there were differences in grade ≥1 urinary urgency in the acute (0% vs 47%; P < .001) and late settings (10% vs 67%; P < .001) favoring 2STAR. For urinary QOL, no difference was observed in the acute setting, but lower proportion in 2STAR had minimal clinically important changes in urinary QOL score in the late setting (21% vs 50%; P = .03). There were no significant differences in gastrointestinal and sexual toxicities and QOL in both acute and late settings between the 2 trials. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the first prospective data comparing 2-fraction prostate SABR ± DIL boost. The addition of DIL boost resulted in similar medium-term efficacy (in 4yrPSARR and BF), with impact on late urinary QOL outcomes.

Clinical implementation of magnetic resonance imaging simulation for radiation oncology planning: 5 year experience.

PURPOSE: Integrating magnetic resonance (MR) into radiotherapy planning has several advantages. This report details the clinical implementation of an MR simulation (MR-planning) program for external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in one of North America's largest radiotherapy programs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An MR radiotherapy planning program was developed and implemented at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in 2016 with two dedicated wide-bore MR platforms (1.5 and 3.0 Tesla). Planning MR was sequentially implemented every 3 months for separate treatment sites, including the central nervous system (CNS), gynecologic (GYN), head and neck (HN), genitourinary (GU), gastrointestinal (GI), breast, and brachial plexus. Essential protocols and processes were detailed in this report, including clinical workflow, optimized MR-image acquisition protocols, MR-adapted patient setup, strategies to overcome risks and challenges, and an MR-planning quality assurance program. This study retrospectively reviewed simulation site data for all MR-planning sessions performed for EBRT over the past 5 years. RESULTS: From July 2016 to December 2021, 8798 MR-planning sessions were carried out, which corresponds to 25% of all computer tomography (CT) simulations (CT-planning) performed during the same period at our institution. There was a progressive rise from 80 MR-planning sessions in 2016 to 1126 in 2017, 1492 in 2018, 1824 in 2019, 2040 in 2020, and 2236 in 2021. As a result, the relative number of planning MR/CT increased from 3% of all planning sessions in 2016 to 36% in 2021. The most common site of MR-planning was CNS (49%), HN (13%), GYN (12%), GU (12%), and others (8%). CONCLUSION: Detailed clinical processes and protocols of our MR-planning program were presented, which have been improved over more than 5 years of robust experience. Strategies to overcome risks and challenges in the implementation process are highlighted. Our work provides details that can be used by institutions interested in implementing an MR-planning program.

Two-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy with simultaneous boost to MRI-defined dominant intra-prostatic lesion - Results from the 2SMART phase 2 trial.

PURPOSE: This is the first report of the 2SMART Phase II trial evaluating the safety of two-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with focal boost to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) defined dominant intra-prostatic lesion (DIL) for localised prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with low or intermediate risk prostate cancer were eligible for the study. The gross tumour volume (GTV) was MRI-defined DIL, and the clinical target volume (CTV) was entire prostate gland. The planning target volume (PTV) was a 2 mm expansion anteroposterior and lateral, and 2.5 mm superoinferior. The prescribed dose was 32 Gy to GTV, and 26 Gy to CTV. Primary endpoint was minimal clinically important change (MCIC) in quality of life (QOL) within 3-months of SABR, assessed using the EPIC-26 questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were acute and late toxicities (assessed using CTCAEv4), PSA nadir, and biochemical failure (based on Phoenix criteria). RESULTS: Thirty men were enrolled in the study - 2 (7%) had low-risk and 28 (93%) had intermediate risk prostate cancer. The median follow-up was 44 months (range:39-49 months). The median PSA nadir was 0.25 ng/mL, with median time to nadir of 37 months. One patient (3%) had biochemical failure at 44 months post-treatment. Ten (33%), six (20%), and three (10%) men had acute MCIC in urinary, bowel, and sexual QOL domains respectively. No acute or late grade ≥ 3 urinary or bowel toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION: This novel protocol of two-fraction prostate SABR with MRI-defined DIL boost is a safe approach for dose-escalation, with minimal impact on acute QOL and no grade ≥ 3 toxicities.

Screening for prostate cancer: protocol for updating multiple systematic reviews to inform a Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline update.

PURPOSE: To inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for prostate cancer in adults aged 18 years and older in primary care. This protocol outlines the planned scope and methods for a series of systematic reviews. METHODS: Updates of two systematic reviews and a de novo review will be conducted to synthesize the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and/or digital rectal examination (DRE) (with or without additional information) and patient values and preferences. Outcomes for the benefits of screening include reduced prostate cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, and incidence of metastatic prostate cancer. Outcomes for the harms of screening include false-positive screening tests, overdiagnosis, complications due to biopsy, and complications of treatment including incontinence (urinary or bowel), and erectile dysfunction. The quality of life or functioning (overall and disease-specific) and psychological effects outcomes are considered as a possible benefit or harm. Outcomes for the values and preferences review include quantitative or qualitative information regarding the choice to screen or intention to undergo screening. For the reviews on benefits or harms, we will search for randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized, and controlled studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. For the review on values and preferences, we will search for experimental or observational studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo. For all reviews, we will also search websites of relevant organizations, gray literature, and reference lists of included studies. Title and abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments will be completed independently by pairs of reviewers with any disagreements resolved by consensus or by consulting with a third reviewer. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach will be used to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. DISCUSSION: The series of systematic reviews will be used by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to update their 2014 guideline on screening for prostate cancer in adults aged 18 years and older. Systematic review registration This review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022314407) and is available on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/dm32k).

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): 2-year toxicity results from an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Localised prostate cancer is commonly treated with external beam radiotherapy and moderate hypofractionation is non-inferior to longer schedules. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) allows shorter treatment courses without impacting acute toxicity. We report 2-year toxicity findings from PACE-B, a randomised trial of conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy versus SBRT. METHODS: PACE is an open-label, multicohort, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial conducted at 35 hospitals in the UK, Ireland, and Canada. In PACE-B, men aged 18 years and older with a WHO performance status 0-2 and low-risk or intermediate-risk histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason 4 + 3 excluded) were randomly allocated (1:1) by computerised central randomisation with permuted blocks (size four and six), stratified by centre and risk group to control radiotherapy (CRT; 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 7·8 weeks or, following protocol amendment on March 24, 2016, 62 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks) or SBRT (36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1-2 weeks). Androgen deprivation was not permitted. Co-primary outcomes for this toxicity analysis were Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity at 24 months after radiotherapy. Analysis was by treatment received and included all patients with at least one fraction of study treatment assessed for late toxicity. Recruitment is complete. Follow-up for oncological outcomes continues. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01584258. FINDINGS: We enrolled and randomly assigned 874 men between Aug 7, 2012, and Jan 4, 2018 (441 to CRT and 433 to SBRT). In this analysis, 430 patients were analysed in the CRT group and 414 in the SBRT group; a total of 844 (97%) of 874 randomly assigned patients. At 24 months, RTOG grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity was seen in eight (2%) of 381 participants assigned to CRT and 13 (3%) of 384 participants assigned to SBRT (absolute difference 1·3% [95% CI -1·3 to 4·0]; p=0·39); RTOG grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity was seen in 11 (3%) of 382 participants in the CRT group versus six (2%) of 384 participants in the SBRT group (absolute difference -1·3% [95% CI -3·9 to 1·1]; p=0·32). No serious adverse events (defined as RTOG grade 4 or worse) or treatment-related deaths were reported within the analysis timeframe. INTERPRETATION: In the PACE-B trial, 2-year RTOG toxicity rates were similar for five fraction SBRT and conventional schedules of radiotherapy. Prostate SBRT was found to be safe and associated with low rates of side-effects. Biochemical outcomes are awaited. FUNDING: Accuray.

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy: Hitting Harder, Faster, and Smarter in High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a technologically sophisticated form of radiotherapy that holds significant potential to effectively treat high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC). Prostate SBRT has been the subject of intense investigation in the context of low- and intermediate-risk disease, but less so for HRPC. However, emerging data are demonstrating its potential to safely and efficiently delivery curative doses of radiotherapy, both to the prostate and elective lymph nodes. SBRT theoretically hits harder through radiobiological dose escalation facilitated by ultra-hypofractionation (UHRT), faster with only five treatment fractions, and smarter by using targeted, focal dose escalation to maximally ablate the dominant intraprostatic lesion (while maximally protecting normal tissues). To achieve this, advanced imaging modalities like magnetic resonance imaging and prostate specific membrane antigen positron emmission tomography (PSMA-PET) are leveraged in combination with cutting-edge radiotherapy planning and delivery technology. In this focused narrative review, we discuss key evidence and upcoming clinical trials evaluating SBRT for HRPC with a focus on dose escalation, elective nodal irradiation, and focal boost.

Imaging Biomarkers in Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy: A Review and Clinical Trial Protocol.

Advances in imaging have changed prostate radiotherapy through improved biochemical control from focal boost and improved detection of recurrence. These advances are reviewed in the context of prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and the ARGOS/CLIMBER trial protocol. ARGOS/CLIMBER will evaluate 1) the safety and feasibility of SBRT with focal boost guided by multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and 18F-PSMA-1007 PET and 2) imaging and laboratory biomarkers for response to SBRT. To date, response to prostate SBRT is most commonly evaluated using the Phoenix Criteria for biochemical failure. The drawbacks of this approach include lack of lesion identification, a high false-positive rate, and delay in identifying treatment failure. Patients in ARGOS/CLIMBER will receive dynamic 18F-PSMA-1007 PET and mpMRI prior to SBRT for treatment planning and at 6 and 24 months after SBRT to assess response. Imaging findings will be correlated with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and biopsy results, with the goal of early, non-invasive, and accurate identification of treatment failure.